April 15, 2009

The Dash To Dumb - Special DHS Edition

The DHS has decided that folks who think the Federal government is too powerful or taxes are too high represent a threat to society. Groan. However, the DHS also unwittingly makes the case for higher taxes - with their current budget they are unable to perform simple Google searches and are presenting as "open source" analysis stories that were debunked years ago. One wonders what else these DHS analysts believe that is simply not so.

But before we dive in, Captain Ed captures the sense of outrage; Andrew Sullivan chooses to miss the point and savor an "I told you so moment", exulting in his criticism of Bush's shredding of the Constitution and expansion of the "Surveillance State". Uh huh - the problem with this DHS study is not that they are threatening extra-Constitutional surveillance and interrogation of people; it is that they are coming very close to attempting to criminalize non-violent political dissent. That is deeply problematic even if they do it with all the proper warrants.

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.

— (U//FOUO) DHS/I&A notes that prominent civil rights organizations have observed an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years.

— (U) In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons and explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested had discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics.

— (U) A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 after communicating his plans to travel to the Mexican border to kill immigrants crossing into the United States.

The militia story from April 2007 represents a ridiculous failure by the "open source" analysts at DHS, who are presenting a discredited story. Maybe Google can help.

Back in April 2007 the Alabama Free Militia was busted, to much hoopla:

BIRMINGHAM, Ala., April 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- This morning
in DeKalb, Marshall and Jefferson Counties, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) spearheaded the execution of
four federal search warrants at the homes of members of a group called
"The Free Militia." During the search warrants, ATF, along with state
and local law enforcement recovered 130 grenades, an improvised rocket
launcher with live rounds, a grenade launcher, a machine gun, a short
barreled shot-gun, two silencers, numerous other firearms, 2500 rounds
of ammunition, explosive components, approximately 70 Improvised
Explosive Devices (IED), and commercial fireworks. Also recovered was
enough ammunition to fill a U-Haul trailer, and over 120 Marijuana
plants. While executing the search warrants, officers encountered booby
traps at one location.

"Deadly explosives have been removed
from these communities due to outstanding investigative efforts,"
stated Alice H. Martin, United States Attorney. "All evidence developed
will be presented quickly to a federal grand jury. We will also ask
that those arrested be detained without bond."

Even prosecutors say the ragtag group called the Alabama Free
Militia had no intended target and was simply stockpiling munitions,
said Boudreaux, who plans to meet this weekend with his client, Raymond
Kirk Dillard, 46, of Collinsville, a supposed major in the paramilitary
group.

"Frankly, I don't think that's a big deal," said Boudreaux. "It seems to be much ado about nothing."

Machine-gunning down hapless Mexicans? Pretty serious stuff. Odd that wasn't mentioned to the defense attorney or in the initial press reports. The Southern Poverty Law Center, not a group that is naturally sympathetic to this sort of behavior, picks up the story:

At a May 1 bail hearing, ATF agent Adam Nesmith seemed to testify that
the government had evidence of the five militia members plotting a
machine-gun attack on Mexican immigrants in the nearby town of Remlap.
Nesmith described a reconnaissance mission the militia allegedly
conducted in Remlap and told the judge, "There was a plan to attack a
group of Mexicans in the Remlap area with their machine guns." The
judge denied bail, and the alleged backwoods militia machine-gun plot
made news across the country. One typical headline the day after the
bail hearing read, "Alabamians planned to machine gun Mexicans."

But there is no mention of any specific plan to kill Mexicans in
the search warrant affidavits or any other court document related to
the Alabama Free Militia defendants, and the ATF says Nesmith's
testimony was misconstrued. [ATF regional director] Cavanaugh told the Intelligence Report that Nesmith did not
mean to suggest that the defendants plotted to machine-gun Mexicans.
What Nesmith meant to convey, Cavanaugh said, is that the militia
members were planning to steal machine guns from Mexicans in Remlap —
not to shoot the Mexicans with machine guns. "The purpose of the
[reconnaissance] trip described by the agent in the testimony was to go
to those Latinos and take their machine guns, which the militia
believed them to possess," Cavanaugh said.

Stealing guns from criminals - the humanity! Or maybe the Mexicans owned them legally? One begins to understand the resentments of an oppressed white guy who is barred from owning machine guns himself and is reduced to stealing illegal guns from illegal immigrants.

Well. It appears that for all their bluster the militia in Alabama don't remember the Alamo:

The informant told the ATF that [militia leader] Dillard repeatedly ordered militia
members to open fire on federal agents if ever confronted by them. But
no shots were fired during the April raids. In fact, Dillard
cooperated, even pointing out booby trap tripwires to bomb squad
agents. "It did surprise me that it went peacefully," DeKalb County
investigator Jones told the Report.

So that is the story of the militia which plotted a "machinegun attack on Hispanics". I'm disappointed that the DHS was not able to unearth any of this with their open source, or even closed source, research. My goodness, a phone call to the BATF could have spared them this embarrassment. Our tax dollars at work.

Let's glance at the last case described by the DHS sleuths:

A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 after communicating his plans to travel to the Mexican border to kill immigrants crossing into the United States.

Richard Serafin sounds like a loathsome fool who can stay behind bars, but... the reporting on the death threats is a bit more blurry at both the AntiDefamation League and SPLC sites.

During
the original investigation, Serafin told an undercover Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent that he is the leader of a tiny militia group called the 45th Battalion, 44th
Field Force (Central Wyoming Militia), and of his alleged personal
plans to move to the Arizona/ Mexico border to assist in killing
immigrants.

However, that has changed from their trial coverage, where they wrote:

Serafin
told an undercover U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agent,
to whom he also sold an illegal rifle, that he planned to travel to the
Arizona-Mexico border and help border vigilante groups keep out immigrants.

In the ADL arrest story, "Serafin
allegedly told an undercover law enforcement officer that he was
relocating to the Arizona-Mexican border to harm illegal immigrants."

Earlier, [Serafin] told the agent that he planned to travel to the
Arizona border to harm immigrants and boasted that "there may be fewer
illegal Mexicans" after his trip.

I'll bet as much as a cup of coffee that Serafin used the phrase "kick ass", which has subsequently been paraphrased into a plan to harm immigrants. As to boasting that there will be fewer immigrants, well, that would be the point of his mission, but it could be accomplished by scaring people back across the border and discouraging others from attempting to enter. Here is one last account from the courtroom:

[ATF Agent] McFarland, operating under cover, contacted Serafin by the Internet and
expressed an interest in learning more about militias and eventually
buying weapons.

In January, Serafin said he intended to travel to the Mexican border
and harm illegal immigrants after drug runners allegedly burned down
his brother's house in Arizona, McFarland wrote. "He added that he has
a 'bad feeling' about what might happen in Arizona, once he gets there.
Serafin also said there may be fewer illegal Mexicans coming into the
U.S. after he is there."

Geez, for a guy planning mass murder, Serfin sure is bashful about actually saying "kill" or "cap 'em with a nine", or anything a bit more specific. Serafin has "a bad feeling" about what he might do? I have a bad feeling about this DHS effort - I think they are editorializing with this report, and if there are fewer such reports going forward, that would be all to the good.

MORE: Although DHS went 0-2 on actual evidence of militias orgainizing against Hispanics, hate crimes against Hispanics have risen from 2003 to 2007, as compiled by the FBI: 529 offenses in 2003 versus 775 in 2007. For blacks, there were 3,032 offenses in 2003 versus 3,275 in 2007. And I didn't even have to check with "prominent civil rights organizations" to glean that.

WORTH CHECKING: From the DHS report:

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to the “New World Order” conspiracy theories of the 1990s. The dissolution of Communist countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led some rightwing extremists to believe that a “New World Order” would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty. The dynamics in 2009 are somewhat similar, as other countries, including China, India, and Russia, as well as some smaller, oil-producing states, are experiencing a rise in economic power and influence.

...

— (U//FOUO) Law enforcement in 1996 arrested three rightwing militia members in Battle Creek, Michigan with pipe bombs, automatic weapons, and military ordnance that they planned to use in attacks on nearby military and federal facilities and infrastructure targets.

Hmm. The three arrests almost surely took place in 1998 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), not 1996. Otherwise, the specific point of this example eludes me. From the AP:

In April 1997, Carter allegedly told the undercover agent his objective
was "to attack, create chaos and hold on for three to four days, at
which time the entire country would rise up against the government."

Comments

Andrew Sullivan's argument seems to be that in the face of his persistant caution to Conservatives about engaging in what he regards as risky political behavior, the consequences of that risky behavior have now come home to roost. Though I do not buy his argument, I do for once believe Andrew is close to actually writing about a subject of which he has personal experience, though he has the subjects doing the cautioning and the object engaging in the risky behavior exactly backward. Regardless, he closes his pedantic screed with the following:

"No hard feelings. Glad to have you back on the side of liberty.

One small question, though: Where the fuck have you been these past seven years?"

I do for once believe Andrew is close to actually writing about a subject of which he has personal experience...

If true this next bit is awkward:

"No hard feelings.

Well, if Andrew watches any televised baseball or basketball game for ten minutes he will be advised as to how to, hmm, get back in the game.

I suppose his point is that if only we had opposed Bush's stretching of the Constitution today we would not need to be worried about a politicized DHS that considers every tax protestor, pro-life advocate, or opponent of immigration amnesty to be half an inch short of becoming a violent right wing extremist.

I say there is little connection - if the DHS surveils the heck out of every right wing "extremist" out there based on their political views and without regard for their predisposition to violence, it is a problem even if the DHS does do everything with scrupulous legality.

Peole don't need to worry abut getting sent to Gitmo (now, Bagram) - the DHS could put them on a no-fly list (just as lefties fantasized Bush was doing) and have local cops hand out parking and speeding tickets every time the target breathes.

There would have been extreme right wing violence at the Republican convention here in St. Paul last year, if only the leftists screaming about peace and breaking plate glass windows weren't being protected by so many police.

I think this memo is outrageous but, perhaps because I'm in the middle of Ezra Levant's wonderful book about PC run amok in Canada, I note that this story would be on the front page if it were not "right wing" extremists being cautioned about but antiwar activists (cite Ayers and Dohrn),CAIR supporters, and Muslims (yesterday there was a splash when a written communication--letter or email--from the Moslem chaplain at Harvard saw the light of day. He supported the notion of death to apostates.

Loathsome politics aside - Tom makes a good point. This is just plain shabby work product. These folks are charged with protecting us? Or should I say "you"? Since, being a returned combat vet, I'm more a threat than a protector of the Homeland...

....has just fallen into its proper place on the worst-case scenario: The Rise of the 'American Militia' mime. But this time, instead of some bozos at the state-government level, this is more insidious, the federal level.

Keep watching for more indicators such as federal legislation banning the ownership of weapons, a Reichstag-Fire event, such as another dupe like McVeigh blowing something up. [Note: There was a major omnibus 'anti-terrorism' bill before Congress when that happened in OKC. Fortunately, Republicans had just gained control and were more level-headed than the Democrats would have been.]

DHS was set up as the federal dud employee dump, we shouldn't expect more than "shabby" from them. The Big Buffoon seems a bit nervous these days. Ordering the black African teenagers heads blown off didn't come off exactly according to plan and the "green shoots" in the Obaconomy have been hit by a hard late frost.

I'm too far away to attend any Tea Parties, my Citi cards have been canceled, I don't have any AIG policies to cancel, I can find most of what I need at Walmart and my current transportation is good 'til inauguration day 2013.

I suppose I should spend a little of the money saved on helping defeat the dirty socialists. Didn't Scott mention that he was raising money to help put Dodd out of work (and into prison)?

Good question, Jane, and I think it's very relevant, since the tea parties are probably what's really scaring them. This right-wing extremist b.s. is just a way to get out in front of the story that's going to be written tonight.

If they can find one or two protesters with intolerant signs, they'll use the pics to paint the whole thing as evidence of the truth of Napolitano's (and Obama's) fantasies. I think the DHS memo is just an attempt to exert control over their opponents. And it has a nice fascist feel to it, too, which is bonus for lefties.

So was this bottom-rung investigation leaked and chirped out in a press release? If it was leaked, do you suppose the point was the same as the ACORN mission--to try to make Tea Party attendees look like stump-toothed, gun-toting, Mexican-hating members of the Alabama Anti-Wetback Militia? Thought so.

See, what you have here is the plain truth: We understand lefties, but they don't understand us. They can't stare at truth for fear of blindness.

I'm taking bets. How many people do you think will show up at the Tea Parties today?

More than few. There have already been local tea parties here, and there are now some scheduled for the State capital today. There was some Dim spokesman on the Radio this morning claiming that these tea parties were an "astroturfing campaign funded by big time Republican organizations." Uhm, or not.

LTC John is right. Shoddy work product. Take it from someone who knows: "Open Source" typically means "I found it on the internet". That factoid alone is enough to make me think twice about what and where I am seen on the internet. And the fact that I am thinking that way is enough to worry me greatly.

This really shouldn't surprise anyone. During the Clinton years, the FBI's anti-terror sections main priority was anti-abortion groups. The project was called http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_26_16/ai_63583803/>VAAPCON. They even had FBI agents writing up files on Falwell and all other prominent anti-abortion advocates and tracking the lobbying efforts of anti-abortion groups under the justification that anyone who opposed abortion was one step away from a bomber.

Of course, back in the 90s, that was ok because it wasn't like Al Qaeda was planning to attack the US, or infiltrating people here to attend flight school, or flying cross country to recon flights to use in a major attack or any other indications of possible threat to the US. Nope, the FBI was focused like a laser beam on the anti-abortion movement, and anyone who opposed abortion was a ligitimate target of investigation. This decision to focus on anti-abortion groups was made after the first bomb attack on the World Trade Center by the way.

I don't recall Sullivan complaining about that at all at the time though. Of course, for a Dem, criminalizing political opposition is second nature.

I wondered about the use of this term. In the computer world, where it originated, it means that you are free to examine and modify the source code (namely, it is open) that when compiled becomes the program you run. There are various restrictions by the license used, but that is beside the point here.

Somehow I don't think "open source" here has anything to do with transparency, but that is the entire idea of open source.

Not to quibble, but let me quibble. The original open-source licenses were the MIT (for X11) and BSD (for Net/FreeBSD). Linux came later. So there are many open-source licenses, but all mean you have the underlying source.

But the point is absolutely right: what on earth does this term mean when there is no transparency?

It really is a sad situation. Either this report is so bad because DHS is full of really incompetent people, or it is so bad because it is exactly what the DHS people wanted to produce; a justification to establish a VAAPCON type intel operation against the entire political opposition to Obama's agenda.

Federal agents will be videotaping the tea party participants today. Mark Davis, WBAP, just ran a clip where a producer asked (I apologize, I missed the man's name) someone at DHS that question and he would neither confirm not deny they were. Smile pretty Jane!

Open source in the context of intelligence means analysis that's based on publicly available information - such as news reports, public web sites, brochures, leaflets, posters, etc, etc. - as opposed to, say, field reports from agents, or other data which is not public.

It doesn't have anything to do with the software meaning of the term. In fact, I think analysts talking about "open sources" may predate the software/copyright usage.

DrJ, it really is a term of art that predates rms's white whale: open sources are things that are published or openly available instead of collected covertly by SIGINT or HUMINT. So CIA subscribes to all news feeds, has every embassy buying newspapers off the street (and probably now recording all TV channels all the time).

Notice this stuff is all classified (U), sometimes (U//FOUO) or (U//LES) -- unclassified, sometimes with the caveat "for official use only" or "law enforcement sensitive" -- which suggests there aren't any other sources and methods involved.

Having worked at DoD, anyone who ever put such a shoddy work together would have been taken out of that position. Open Source is more than just a few internet searches, and needs to be backed by other open source documentation (books, reference works, testimony, etc.) to demonstrate background and veracity.

Once you take out the material that is hearsay, not backed by actual evidence, and otherwise not corroborated by demonstrable reporting by multiple organizations you are left with a couple of non-militia, 'lone wolf' or sub-10 person groups. Tim McVeigh's actual operational group was at the sub-10 person range, but has indications of backing from overseas which has never been followed-up. Eric Rudolph, and the killer of Bernard Sleppian are 'lone wolf' attacks. For every one of those I'll see you a Squeaky Fromme and raise you a deranged Hinckley.

The 'militia movements' are always scary words to bypass the neglect of States and local communities to encouraging self-defense organizations with no permanent standing but can be called upon in times of 'invasion or Danger that will not admit delay' as is in Art. I, Sec. 10 of the US Constitution. States fought hard to get that in there and now neglect it, entirely.

Then there is the attempt to paint purely political causes as 'recruitment' venues for 'extremists'. Can we get some evidence of that, please, on the right? And what about naming groups that DHS has done with the Left, where are the groups that are into these nefarious activities? They name them for the left, but not the right, thus allowing the left to characterize those as a few groups that just don't represent them, but then allow any civil problems with civil government over taxation and actual authority to do certain things as 'extremist' on the other side of the fence. A similar bit for the left would read that 'global warming gatherings serve as recruiting opportunities for ELF'. Wouldn't that be nice to hear? Ditto with those wanting 'renewable' energy sources that cost too much and don't yield the efficiencies they are purported to gain. Bunch of ELF-leaning sympathizers! But you can't say that because the linkage isn't done by DHS.

Of course if you think this can only be used against the right, people on the left do need to look at the rise to power of left authoritarian governments and how quickly they get rid of initial sympathizers once their purpose has been served. By that point it is too late to complain because you never bothered to uphold the liberty of others, and now find it was your own you were tossing away.

There seems to be an analysis problem here. We are arguing that the big deal is that in this case the Government is incompetent in deciding who is and who is not a terrorist. As right as we are, we are nitpicking methods. In other words, we are saying that a big nanny state is just fine, as long as they do a good job identifying terrorists. We trusted the Government to get big and benevolent with surveillance. We gave them Patriot act, and Protect America act, and FISA reform, trusting that they would not elect to turn those powers against us. And now we have Obama, who all the sudden has abandoned his campaign promises to "protect civil liberties". Why? Because he wants to use the nanny state to collect taxes and monitor whomever he deems a terrorist... us. Sorry to admit this, but Sullivan hits more on the root of the problem. Making investigators use better methods or avoid PC motivations for investigations will not solve the root problem.

1. This report is supposed to be one in a series of reports, per the introduction to it. There may be other reports going to law enforcement. Per the disclaimer on the document, these reports are not supposed to be public -- hence there is no easy way to find out.

2. The outfit that produced this stuff has been around a while. See the link for a description of the work of this group, and their methodology for producing reports.

3. Generally, when one of these reports becomes public, they always seem strangely lacking in substantive content. I don't work in govenment so maybe someone can opine -- is this typical, or is it just because the report is not classified?

The best part of the report for me is the use of the word terrorist when referring to Americans. Just make sure you call overseas terrorism "man made disasters". Well, we have a "man made disaster" right here at home. His name is Obama.

well we saw with the two PDBs, the first detailed persons like the late Abu Haf al Masri (Mohammed Atef) and Seif Al Adel, Col Mokkawi, the second only a month from D day
excised that information and had none of the
details from the Phoenix Memo, or other info
like the presence of Al Midhar and Al Hazmi
in this country, The NIE's have also been very sloppy, the last relying almost entirely on Asghari, and leaving out the Mousavian letter to the Ayatollah, showing how they had fooled the PC-3 negotiators

This is from FactCheck, when Obama in a presidential debate claimed we had seen hate crimes against hispanics "skyrocket":

Obama's "Skyrocket" Dud

However, Obama was being overly dramatic when he said, "we have seen hate crimes skyrocket in the wake of the immigration debate."

That's saying a bit much. When we asked his campaign for documentation, they pointed us to the most recent FBI statistics, which actually show that the number of incidents classified officially as "hate crimes" went up 7.8 percent in 2006. (Figures for 2007, which would show what occurred during and after the highly charged debate on the House and Senate immigration bills last year, won't be available until much later in 2008.)

We think a 7.8 percent increase hardly qualifies as a "skyrocket." Looking only at the incidents in which Hispanics were targeted, "hate crimes" rose a bit more, 10.3 percent, but that's hardly a rocket-propelled rise either. Furthermore, the number of anti-Hispanic incidents fluctuates widely from year to year. During the last 11 years, the number of incidents nationwide has bounced around between a low of 426 in 2003 and a high of 597 in 2001, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. It was 576 in 2006.

Sorry to admit this, but Sullivan hits more on the root of the problem.

Sorry, but that's dumber'n dirt. The need for FISA reform was primarily because a bunch of leftist twits (specifically including excitable Andy) decided to define "domestic surveillance" as including communications between overseas Al Qaeda members and unknown persons in the United States. Obviously we want to intercept those communications, and just as obviously, any system can be abused. The idea that we need a left-leaning jurist type to look it over provides little assurance against politicizing definitions, and guarantees the national defense portion will be ineffective.

3. Generally, when one of these reports becomes public, they always seem strangely lacking in substantive content. I don't work in govenment so maybe someone can opine -- is this typical, or is it just because the report is not classified?

Some of each. On one hand, most of the really good stuff will have come from protected sources, or by aggregation with protected sources, and would be classified at least confidential, probably higher. On the other hand, the whole process of making a report of this sort tends to homogenize it, as anything that could actually be proven wrong is removed, lest it return to bite. I did a piece last year on the "SNAFU Principle" that talks more about that effect.

"A certain segment has basically been feeding a kind of xenophobia. There's a reason why hate crimes against Hispanic people doubled last year,'' Obama said. "If you have people like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh ginning things up, it's not surprising that would happen."

I wonder if "Appalled" was worried about the Clintons using the FBI to conduct government funded opposition research against the pro-choice movement in the 90s?

Of course VAAPCON project (Violence Against Abortion Practisioners Conspiracy) wasn't a politicization of the DoJ. Because using the FBI to determine how anti-abortion groups are lobbying is a perfectly legitimate use of Federal law enforcement.

This report is going to be used to justify massive government funded opposition research against everyone and anyone who opposes Obama's agenda.

It seems obvious to me that this is part of the our-political-opponents-are-dangerous-knichledragging-women-and-minority-haters thang.
It has worked for the left since at least the mid-60's and it is being revived big time because of considerable middle of the oraders' opposition to the Dems' economic tax and spend bonanza.It was released now to undercut the tea parties' impact on the public consciousness.

Sullivan's argument seems to be admitting one of two extraordinarily stupid things;
1. People on the right who criticize the government are equivalent to Islamic terrorists, or;
2. Surveilling Aryan Nation/Tim Mcveigh types is equivalent to the lefty canard of Bush checking up on left wing public library reading habits.

The problem here is the usual one of the left inventing a fantasy world and then responding to their own fairy tails (no more Sully jokes please).

The fantasy in this case of course is that Bush was surveilling innocent Americans merely for expressing the most benign of liberal dissenting views. Further, when DHS now seems to conflate mainstream conservative/libertarian dissent with Nazis etal we are supposed to act humbled because Sullivan warned us of this when Bush was going out of his way (too far IMO) to NOT conflate Islamic terrorists with American lefties.

Scott, as you noted above (thanks), the part of the oath about the President is for enlisted only.

As you noted, officers don't have that in their oath. Each service's oath of office may vary slightly (the Army's does). The USAF, as of 2004, used the version administered to Vice Presidents. (Which means that the Honorable Mr. Biden presumably swore this oath...)

I, A— B—, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[8]

Hi All - So far I still have a job, but the next 6 months will tell...

OT Question for the attorney's:

I was on jury duty last week, as a juror - the trial was Count 1- Felony Forcible Rape, Count 2 - Felony assault to commit great bodliy harm. Victim was 15 at the time, defendant was 18.

In a nutshell, due to lack of evidence we could not convict WRT the two greater charges, nor the lesser charges to each count. The consensus was it was consensual and two liars in a he said/she said tug of war.

But my question is this: (Since the defendant admitted he did have consensual sex with the victim albeit no rape or assault was involved)we aquitted him on all counts. Can or will the state charge him now with statutory rape?

Not really defending the report (which looks like somebody's last minute paper for the junior high social studies class). I'm just curious about the context -- which may go a bit deeper than a simple "Obama wants to smear the right." My guess is that this was written without prompting by either Obama or Napolitano. Instead, it was likely an "inside job" written by the sort of folks that, when they are at the Department of Justice, irritate clarice.

My guess is that this was written without prompting by either Obama or Napolitano. Instead, it was likely an "inside job" written by the sort of folks that, when they are at the Department of Justice, irritate clarice.

That's probable. The fact that it got released, and the timing, could be mediated by political appointees, though. It also appears that there is a similar report on left-wing domestic terrorism, but I haven't seen details of that.

However, for an instructive hypothetical, consider what the press reaction would have been if the equivalent left-wing report had been leaked just before a major antiwar demonstration during Bush's administration?

Appalled- much of the thinking in the report directly mirrors candidate Obama's assertions, as I quoted.

This is in the report:

"Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent."

Whereas candidate Obama was daring enough to name Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs as ginning up extremist anti-immigrant outrage that had led to an increase in hate crimes against hispanics (a false claim).

Enactment of stimulus legislation and omnibus appropri­ations, a worsening of the economic outlook, and other factors have increased CBO’s projections of the deficit by more than $400 billion in both 2009 and 2010 and by smaller amounts thereafter. As a result, if current policies remain the same, CBO now anticipates that the deficit will total almost $1.7 trillion (11.9 percent of gross domestic product, or GDP) this year and $1.1 trillion (7.9 percent of GDP) next year, the largest deficits as a share of GDP since 1945 (see Table 1-1).

"As you may know a bunch of redneck traitors are planning a protest on April 15th involving waving around a few tea bags and demonstrating mild irritation at Prez. Obama for making them pay taxes. Here is your chance to do your duty for your president and country and send these fools an unmistakable message.

First of all you can sign up at Huffington Post to become a tea party reporter. It would be a good idea to meet some people to take names and also pictures if possible which should also be forwarded to Janet Napolitano at the DHS.

Next you can join with our comrades at ACORN who have plans afoot to disperse these traitors.

Basically the plan works like this - ACORN has infiltrated the redneck groups that are planning all this. On the 15th at the proper moment a van pulls up with 5 young black women with pro Obama signs. They will be peaceful and respectful. Our infiltrators will verbally attack them with profanity and racial slurs and physically push them around while our camera crew films. In a minute they take off and it is all over.

Doesn't seem like much till that night when the video gets put on the news and all you see are crazy hillbilly conservatives attacking innocent black counter protesters, shouting racial slurs and pushing them around.

You too can be a part of the glorious moment in history and help keep these traitors in check."

I think it's for real. I mean, they've got a photo of the crime scene and everything! Doesn't seem much crazier than some of the other shit that's going down. Look at it this way, if you can believe an Obama or Bernanke speech (Brace For Hyper-Inflation) then why not believe an Onion news article?

Hi, anduril! I just got back from the Austin tea party and didn't see any counterprotesters, for what it's worth. The rally was very well organized and quite peaceful, aside from loud cheering and applause of course. Since it's Austin I would have assumed this was as likely a city as any for counterprotesters to show up.

I posted my tea party recap on the other thread, but briefly, there were at least 1500 people there just after noon when Rick Perry took the stage. This was reported as 400 people by the local TV news station, and the story was filed at 11:53 am. Ridiculous.

Some context about the sort of thing these DHS reports are supposed to cover:

Terrorists are not the only violent domestic extremists who can potentially threaten our security at home. We are concerned with all types of violent extremists, including racial supremacists, anarchists, ecoterrorists, Islamic extremists, and animal rights radicals. The most active are environmental and animal rights extremists, whose actions have resulted in millions of dollars in property damage. Finally, white supremacists are the most capable of violent domestic radicals and have the potential to mount attacks on the scale of the Oklahoma City bombing. At the local level, the activity of groups like Hammerskin Nation and variety of outlaw motorcycle gangs is a constant concern. Our analysis of how different groups become radicalized—and the threats they pose to the U.S.—aids federal, state and local law enforcement in their efforts to provide security at home. All of our analysis is performed while abiding by applicable rules that protect the American people’s rights to privacy and civil liberties.

Source is a speech from Charles E. Allen, Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis /Chief Intelligence Officer
at Homeland Security (as of Oct 2008). LUN.

I wonder if this report was supposed to provide "balance" to earlier reports about enviro-terrorists and animal rights lunatics. There's no way to know without further leaks.

He notes that the report focuses on the threat of cyber attack, not actual physical attacks despite the fact that many of the specific groups cited actually conducted many physical attacks.

I attribute this to the fact that the grand shithead Richard Clark was head of Counter Terrorism, and cyber security was his "big thing" (so much so that he was eventually eased out and giving a job that let him focus entirely on cyber defense).

And, you still haven't addressed my main issue with this, which is that this type of report looks designed to justify a wide ranging opposition research operation by the DHS on anyone who opposes Obama's agenda, just as, in the wake of the first Twin Towers attack, the DoJ chose to set up the VAAPCON operation which focused on opponents of a key policy dispute to the Clinton administration rather than foreign radicals that had tried to destory a key financial center in the US.

Without evidence of such a grand plan, I am not going to opine that it exists.

Where are these leaks coming from? It seems like the right wing press/blogs were the folks who got hold of these reports and released them, not the DU or MSNBC. Is somebody playing Michelle Malkin, FoxNews and Hot Air?

Reuters released this one. So I can't imagine it was a right wing plot..Perhaps someone at DHS is (rightly) concerned about the Dept's overreaching:

Judge Napolitano(no relation I take it):
"This document runs directly counter to numerous U.S. Supreme decisions prohibiting the government from engaging in any activities that could serve to chill the exercise of expressive liberties. Liberties are chilled, in constitutional parlance, when people are afraid to express themselves for fear of government omnipresence, monitoring, or reprisals. The document also informs the reader that Big Brother is watching both public and private behavior.

5. The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to guarantee open, broad, robust debate on the policies and personnel of the government. The First Amendment presumes that individuals — NOT THE GOVERNMENT — are free to choose what they believe and espouse, what they read and say, and with whom they associate in public and in private. The writers of this abominable report are particularly concerned with the expression of opinions that might be used to fuel ideas that challenge federal authority or favor state and local government over the federal government. Unfortunately, legislation passed during the past eight years gives the DHS and the FBI the tools to monitor everything from a telephone conversation to the keystrokes used on a personal computer without a warrant issued by a federal judge.

6. My guess is that the sentiments revealed in the report I read are the tip of an iceberg that the DHS would prefer to keep submerged until it needs to reveal it. This iceberg is the heavy-hand of government; a government with large and awful eyes, in whose heart there is no love for freedom, and on whose face there is no smile."

The leaks are probably coming from the same kind of disgruntled career civil servants who leaked the existance of VAAPCON to Judicial Watch. There are still a few people in government who don't think that federal agencies should be used for political purposes (though the numbers are getting smaller and smaller all the time).

Probably not. Since the DoJ's case for the OKC bombing was an act committed by a single individual with support from 2 others, I don't see how one could spin that as a movement and the ATF bungled their case against the Mongols and I'm not sure what sort of political movement is behind better choppers and meth dealing. Remember this from the good ole' Clinton days.

Will make a nice hammer when leftist activists all over the country start making accusations to local and federal authorities against conservatives.

And give me a break on the anti-trade sentiment or anti-immigrant sentiment from the report. Obama campaigned on anti-NAFTA sentiments in the mid-west and once in power caved to the Teamsters demands to close the US-Mexico border to Mexican truckers. I seriously doubt the Teamsters and the Obama campaign can be considered "right wing".

And re: the FBI numbers, do they breakout the perpetrator's race or is it just a given that if it is a racially motivated attack it must be a right-wing, white-supremacist. Curious.